ABC's Election Analyst blogs on the wonderful world of Australian Elections.

September 05, 2012

In Which Party's Interest is an Early Federal Election?

In this morning's Sydney Morning Herald, Peter Hartcher reveals that the Gillard government has set up an election policy committee to plan for next year's federal election.

More remarkably, Hartcher suggests the committee gives the government the option of calling an early election.

This idea sounds truly remarkable given that every opinion poll for the last two years has shown Labor would lose such an election in a landslide.

Yet there is one advantage for the Labor Party in an early election - there would be no half-Senate election with any early House election.

This means that a new Coalition government would be forced to try and govern with the current Senate for more than a year.

In his article Hartcher points this out, stating that "any election held before August 3 would put the House of Representatives out of sync with the Senate. This is entirely possible but creates complications."

However, given the government would likely lose any early election, the complications would all be for the Coalition, not the Labor Party.

An early election would be about preventing the Coalition getting control of the Senate at an election in late 2013. It would also be about locking a first term Coalition government into an election in 2014, and perhaps even cutting short its second term.

Section 13 of the Constuitution means that any election held before 3 August 2013 would be for the House of Representatives and the four Territory Senators. There cannot be a half-Senate election for state Senators before August 2013, and even then, the new Senators elected would not take their seats until 1 July 2014.

This is one reason why over the next year you may hear much less of the Coalition calling for an immediate election.

A Coalition government coming to office at an early election would not only face a hostile Senate. It would also have to deal with another consequence of Section 13 of the Constitution, a requirement to hold a half-Senate election by the end of May 2014.

This would mean that 12-18 months into its first term, the Coalition would face a stand-alone half-Senate election, or have to call an early House election if it wished to avoid the two chambers getting out of step.

Experience of the last two separate half-Senate elections in 1967 and 1970 suggests that voters can treat them as giant by-elections, an opportunity to kick a government without tossing it out off office.

A separate half-Senate election would be a picnic for minor parties. It would also bring much greater scrutiny to the candidates of both major parties, a scrutiny that rarely occurs at Senate elections held in conjunction with the House.

There have also been several important changes to electoral laws since the separate half-Senate elections four decades ago. Today there are many more minor parties around and they are now permitted to have their party names printed on the ballot paper. The introduction of 'above-the-line' ticket voting also allows exotic preference deals that were not possible in the 1960s.

The most likely secenario if the Coalition came to office at an early election is that it would try do away with the need for a half-Senate election by engineering a double dissolution.

Legislation passed twice by the House and then defeated, delayed or unacceptably amended by the Senate, provides grounds for a double dissolution under Section 57 of the Constitution. This would send the House and the entire Senate to an election, but would have to be engineered by May 2014 to overcome the requirement for a half-Senate election.

The Coalition has vowed to repeal the government's carbon price legislation, and it would seem most likely that the new government would set about turning that promise into a double dissolution trigger.

Yet the new Coalition government would take office with plans for expenditure cuts and knowing it would have to face at least a half-Senate election within 18 months.

Of course the Labor Party might promise to do what Paul Keating did to John Hewson's GST proposal in 1993, to let it through the Senate if the opposition won the election. Giving the Coalition free passage of carbon price and mining tax repeal legislation would make the Coalition's task of trying to balance the budget even tougher, and lock in the early half-Senate election.

Another consequence of a double dissolution is that it would not only cut short the Coalition's first term in government, but most likely cut short its second

A double dissolution in the first half of 2014 would back-date Senate terms to 1 July 2013 and require another half-Senate election in the first half of 2016. Given government's like to avoid separate half-Senate elections, a double dissolution in early 2014 would set the course for another election in early 2016.

It was a similar scenario that faced the Whitlam government when elected in December 1972. There was no half-Senate election that year, the Senate elected in 1967 and 1970 staying in place. Whitlam was required to call a half-Senate election for May 1974, and did so before supplanting it with a double dissolution.

The 1974 double dissolution back-dated Senate terms and required another half-Senate election by May 1976. Calling a half-Senate election was the advice Gough Whitlam was proposing to give when he visited the Governor General on 11 November 1975.

While I think the Labor government is likely to run full-term, with or without the current Prime Minister, the option of it going early is live. Parts of the Labor Party, especially some in the union movement, would be concerned that the Coalition could gain control of the Senate at a normal election held in late 2013.

I've always thought that a quick change of Labor leadership to Kevin Rudd followed by a snap House election might be Labor's best chance of minimising losses and leaving the Coalition without control of the Senate.

With a return of Kevin Rudd as Labor leader now looking less likely, I thought the early election option had faded.

Perhaps an early election is still possible. However, where in the last two years an early election was always in the Coalition's interest, the constitutional problems created by an election this late in the government's term may now make the Coalition less keen on the idea.

(You might like to read two other related posts. I previously ran through possible Federal election dates in this post. I've also looked at prospects of the Coalition winning control of the Senate at the 2013 half-Senate election at this post.)

Antony. Gillard and Swan may want to go to an early election because the economy, employment, growth and Swan's Budget are all likely to go pear shaped by early next year thereby costing Labor more seats.

COMMENT: Whatever the reasons, it is what happens to the Senate that drives the calculation of an early election.

In my opinion, this whole issue of the short term for the house of reps (3 years) versus the long fixed 6 year term for the senate makes the federal sphere a laughing stock.

The system is set up to promote short term political gestures rather than long term policy solutions....................

Has the idea of a four year fixed term, for the house of reps, in sync with the senate, ever been promoted or advanced?

COMMENT: Yes. Proposals to tie House and Senate terms together were defeated at referendums in 1974, 1977, 1984 and 1988. The 1977 referendum won a clear majority of the national vote but failed after being defeated in Queensland, Western Australia and Tasmania.

Antony, is there a plausible reason for the ABC using washed up hacks from News Ltd instead of your excellent self ? This usually occurs when polling is being discussed on any ABC programme.

If people are interested in the line that News Ltd are pushing surely the would go to their sites. I tune in to the ABC to hear ABC content.

COMMENT: The reason you don't hear me opining on opinion polls is that I happen to find it one of the most boring things in the world to talk about regularly. You'll notice I very rarely blog on the subject either.

I presume you are referring to Australian journalists such as Dennis Shanahan doing late night ABC chats on Newspoll. I would point out that the Australian pays for these polls, and if they are going to let numbers out the night before, they are entirely entitled to say how they release. Why would the Australian give pre-release of a poll result for me to talk about?

Antony if federal labor are looking at an early election it doesnt sound good for how they view the economy in the next 18 months.I get the feeling the wheels are falling off their emmisions targets after todays news on their backdown of closing the dirty coal fired power stations and they are at war with their partners the greens.Perhaps they are about to cut their losses and run to the polls.

COMMENT: I don't think they are planning an early election, but they have planned for it as Plan B. Plan A would still be to go full term.

If the Prime Minister advises the Governor-General to call an election, is the GG obliged to accept this advice?

COMMENT: No they don't, but to decline the advice would be to put the Governor-General in the position of trying to determine if an alternative government is possible.

I don't think the PM is going to ask for an early election without a reason. A change of leader, a resignation from parliament, defeat on a vote in the House, all could be a pre-text if one was wanted.

Thanks Antony , Gillard would need a credible reason to go early.The electorate are not mugs and would see labors suicide bombing of the next Government in a very dim light indeed.
Rank opertunists pay a heavy price at elections - witness the Carpenter debacle over here in the West.
It's one thing to go early just because you think you can win, quite another so that your inevitable loss will cause maximual disruption to your opponents.
Gillard is already streets ahead for the title of Australias worst PM - would even she contemplate such a henous and cynical "whatever it takes"abuse of high office?
Is she looking for her legacy to be simply disappointment or disgrace and infamy?

COMMENT: I think you've read your own pre-conceptions into my post. I carefully worded the article and never said 'Gillard' would call an early election. The strongest pre-text for an early election would be a change of Labor leader, perhaps a resignation from Parliament, or perhaps a defeat on the floor of the House. All three would normally produce cries from the Opposition for an early election, which is what the Government would need to do what I suggest. However, as I explained, this might be the point in the electoral cycle where demanding an early election is not in the Coalition's best interest.

Considering previous polls, especially such as prior to 2007 and 2001, why do the media consider the polling a landslide? Polls always narrow near election time.

COMMENT: Polls don't always narrow. In 1996 there was no narrowing and Labor was as far behind at the election as it had been 12 months earlier. Sometimes they widen, sometimes they narrow or the lead reverses, sometimes they stay exactly the same. But the polls you refer to in 2001 and 2007 never had the Howard government miles behind for two years after being returned to office.

I do luv you old chap. But please never, ever, ever, mention a pre - August election again. My heart rate hit a zillion a couple of times during the meat of yr argument.

It will not, cannot, must not happen. Yes a small party is incredibly favoured by the electoral math that accompanies a half senate but the reason we are all in this game is because we care about the country. And a pre - August election is simply proof that Labor has given up and represents the worst case scenario.

I am betting that by April next year a few of the punters will be standing around a bit clear of the maul and beginning to think 'hang around? an Abbot Government?'

COMMENT: I think what I outline is Plan B rather than Plan A. A change of leader, the sudden loss of a sitting Labor MP, losing the support of one of the cross benches and losing a key parliamentary vote, all are situations that could bring on Plan B and an early election.

Thanks for the article. If a double dissolution were to occur at some stage for whatever reason, how is it determined which senators have a 3 year term and which have 6? i.e. how do we get back into the programme of half the senate being elected every 3 years?

If Ms Gillard asked for an early election today, would the GG be OBLIGED to summons Tony Abbott and ask him about the prospect of putting together a majority in the HoR before acceding to the election request?
Has anything like this ever happened before in a Westminster system where a minority governments request for an early election was rejected in favour of a re-testing of support on the floor of the house?

It seems to me that none of the Independents has any reason to welcome an early election so they may well swallow some pride and transfer support on the floor to the Lib/Nats.
Of course in that scenario Tony Abbott may look ridiculous for carrying on the parliament for obscure Senate timing reasons which the general populace would not fathom.

COMMENT: Not obliged at all. The last time I can recall a head of government being refused an election request was in Victoria in 1952 and the replacement government lasted only 4 days, at which point the reins of office went back to the first Premier who had requested a dissolution and the election went ahead.

I don't think government processes today could cope with four day governments, so I suspect Mr Abbott in these circumstances could be given the chance to try and form government but would need to prove his numbers before being given a commission to form government.

It is also an established convention that if a government asks for an election, is rejected and a new government forms, then the new government would not be granted an immediate dissolution. If a dissolution was required because the parliament was unworkable, the dissolution normally goes to the first asking head of government. A new government would be formed to govern, not to go to a dissolution.

Of course, the 1975 precedent is an exception to this rule, but probably not relevant in the current circumstances.

I don't think Mr Abbott would be commissioned to form a government in the current parliament unless he can first establish he has the numbers to last a period of time. He wouldn't be commissioned just to call an election, unless the parliament really became unworkable and the current government embarrassed the crown by continuing to try and govern.